Tags
Antarctic Ice Melt, Climate Change, Collapse of Industrial Civilization, Doubling Time, Environmental Collapse, Exponential Growth, Freshwater Pulses, Greenland Ice Sheet Melt, IPCC, James Hansen, Nickolay Lamm, Nuclear Meltdown, Ocean Dead Zones, Oceanic Anoxic Events, Paul Beckwith, Salt Water Intrusion, Sea Level Rise, Warm Water Upwelling
What makes exponential growth so deceptive is that, no matter the growth rate, things always starts out with a period of slow growth, but then quickly change over to a rapid buildup with a characteristic doubling time. Before you know it, you are overrun with rodents, overwhelmed by bacteria, and surrounded by urban sprawl. As Albert Bartlett exclaimed, “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” And so it goes with the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Within a few generations we will find ourselves inundated by rising oceans at the same time that surging temperatures are making large swaths of the planet uninhabitable. Various positive feedbacks are amplifying the exponential rate of ice melt, rendering useless the IPCC’s linear-model forecasting of global sea level rise(SLR). Upwelling of warm ocean waters are melting both polar regions from the bottom up, and the resulting large freshwater pulses are already slowing down ocean currents. The oceans are losing oxygen. Reflective Arctic sea ice is fast disappearing and a blue ocean event is just around the corner. Melting polar and glacial ice and thermally expanding ocean water have accelerated SLR to the highest rate in at least 6000 years, and an estimated 69 feet SLR has already been set into motion.
From recent satellite data and scientific studies, SLR appears to be in the beginning phase of an exponential growth pattern that will decimate thousands of coastal cities by 2070. Last year we learned that the ice mass loss rate from both Greenland and Antarctica has more than doubled in the past 5 years. Ominously, the West Antarctic ice sheet has been found to be less stable than originally thought. Warming ocean waters are infiltrating beneath the ice shelves and irreversibly melting West Antarctica from below. And more recently we learned that the stability of East Antarctica is being undermined in the same insidious way. In fact, Antarctic ice shelves have been thinning up to 70% faster than average in some spots. These ice shelves extend out over the polar waters and are what hold back and support all the land-based glacial ice. Once the ice shelves are eroded, land ice will have an open path to slide down into the ocean and melt, greatly accelerating SLR. Congruent with these disturbing trends is the revelation that SLR has been increasing much faster than we thought in the last couple decades. The rate of change per year has been 3.2mm since 1990 versus 1 to 1.4mm for the previous nine decades. That is a 100% to 200% increase in just the last couple decades. Adding to SLR is the frenzied pumping of groundwater by drought-stricken farmers and municipalities. In a cruel twist, SLR will only worsen fresh water scarcity by causing inland salt water intrusion, raising the fresh water table, and altering freshwater streamflow. SLR will reshape geography, changing coastal estuaries, wetlands, and forests. Radically altering such natural topographical features will inevitably change rainfall patterns. Permanent and intermittent flooding will allow for the expansion of tropical diseases such as cholera and malaria, and more frequent and intense hurricanes and monsoons will increase the number of cases and duration of exposure to pathogens and diseases.
Dr. James Hansen has argued all along that 5 meters of sea level rise by the end of the century is possible, saying:
“…IPCC treats sea level change basically as a linear process. It is more realistic, I believe, that ice sheet disintegration will be non-linear, which is typical of a system that can collapse.”
Hansen had posited a doubling time of ten years for land ice melt rates, but satellite data has revealed a doubling time that is occurring twice as fast. This would put those measurements more in line with the projections of physicist/climatologist Paul Beckwith who calculates we may be on track for a 7 meter(23 feet) SLR by 2070 if the doubling period of ice cap melt from both Greenland and Antarctica hold up over this century. Paul tells me that the recent developments described above support his views. Interestingly, there was a study published in 2013 that stated an eventual 23 foot SLR would be locked-in by the end of the century under BAU emissions based on best estimates of global temperature sensitivity to pollution and the finding that every degree Fahrenheit of global warming results in a global average long-term SLR of 4.2 feet. That study, however, did not take into account the exponential rate of ice melt now occurring.
What will 23 feet SLR look like? For some fairly accurate visuals, take a look at Nickolay Lamm’s work. In the U.S. alone, 1500 communities would be underwater at high tide. With its porous limestone substrate, South Florida would be completely lost:
Most nuclear plants are located along waterways for easy access to water for coolant purposes, making them vulnerable to storm surge flooding in a world of expanding oceans. Since decommissioning a nuclear power station is a long, expensive, and dangerous process, I can’t imagine we will have the time, money, or forethought to safely get rid of all these time bombs before most of them are swallowed up by the ocean and go Fukushima on the world. In addition, melting ice sheets and SLR can set off the most destructive of earthquakes and volcanoes. The toxic wreckage left behind by capitalist industrial civilization will linger around for millennia to haunt anyone who does manage to survive in this hellish future.
The year is now 2015 and the human population is still shooting skyward as if there is some sort of bright techno-utopian future on the horizon, the high priests of capitalism are still praising endless growth, fossil fuels are still the predominant energy source on the planet, and the masses still can’t get enough of celebrity gossip. No need to worry about the future. I’m sure if there’s a buck to be made by holding back the rising tides, we can count on some capitalist lurking in the shadows to fix the problem. Sea walls will do the trick, right? Humans are looking more and more like ants on a floating turd: “When the log turns over we will all be dead…”
Update May 8, 2015:
A new study shows another ominous jump in the rate of growth in SLR. Robert Scribbler blogs about the staggering 30% increase here:
…new findings paint an even starker picture. For a recent study, headed by Shuang Yi and published on April 30 in Geophysical Research Letters provides evidence that, since 2010, annual rates of global sea level rise have shown a strong uptick. The study, entitled An Increase in the Rate of Global Mean Sea Level Rise Since 2010, notes:
The global mean sea level (GMSL) was reported to have dropped 5 mm due to the 2010/11 La Niña and have recovered in one year. With longer observations, it is shown that the GMSL went further up to a total amount of 11.6 mm by the end of 2012, excluding the 3.0 mm/yr background trend. A reconciled sea level budget, based on observations by Argo project, altimeter and gravity satellites, reveals that the true GMSL rise has been masked by ENSO-related fluctuations and its rate has increased since 2010. After extracting the influence of land water storage, it is shown that the GMSL have been rising at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.5 mm/yr for more than three years, due to an increase in the rate of both land ice loss and steric change.
In short, the study finds an average rate of sea level rise of 4.4 mm per year, or 30% faster than the annual rate from 1992 to 2009, during the period of 2010 to 2013. For these, more rapidly rising, sea levels the study identifies clear causes. The first is an increasing rate of land ice loss. The second is what is termed as ‘steric change’ — a scientific phrase that both identifies ocean thermal expansion due to warming combined with changes in ocean salinity, which also impacts sea surface height.
I emailed this recent finding to Paul Beckwith and here’s what he had to say:
Update July 10, 2015:
This post appears to becoming reality.
Update July 20,2015:
Update July 23, 2015:
James Hansen’s controversial sea level rise paper has now been published online
Update December 31, 2015:
Update January 1, 2016:
The Coming Reality of Sea Level Rise: Too Fast Too Soon
Update January 7, 2016:
Update January 11, 2016:
SLR has risen 8cm since 1992 and jumped by 1cm just in the last year:
Looking back over the last century, we see what looks like the beginnings of an exponential rise in recent times:
We already have 20 to 75 feet of SLR locked in. It’s just a matter of how fast it will happen and you can bet that it won’t be a gradual, linear rise. If you follow the news, glaciologists always seem to be amazed that things are happening much faster than expected. Here are a couple recent headlines:
Greenland’s Undercut Glaciers Melting Faster than Thought
GREENLAND’S MELTING ICE IS RUNNING OFF FASTER THAN WE THOUGHT
Government estimates of SLR over this century do not take into account rapid melt of polar ice sheets:
…Most of the models projecting future sea level rise assume a gradual acceleration of sea level rise through this century and beyond as ice melt gradually accelerates. Our knowledge of how sea level rose out of the past ice age paints a very different picture of sea level response to climate change. At the depth of the last ice age, about 18,000 years ago, sea level was some 420 feet below present level as ice was taken up by large continental ice sheets. Subsequent ice melt was not a gradual acceleration and then deceleration process. Rather it was a series of very rapid pulses of sea level rise followed by pauses. These rapid pulses of rise, from three to thirty feet, were fast enough to leave drowned reefs, sandy barrier islands, tidal inlet deltas, and other coastal deposits abandoned across the continental shelf. That is what happens when climate change warms enough to destabilize some ice sheet sector. It rapidly disintegrates, resulting in a rapid rise.
We have significantly warmed atmospheric climate and that is resulting in an accelerated ice melt of the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Much of the surface of the Ice Sheet is darkening as the dust and black carbon in the ice concentrates on the melting surface. This accelerates heat adsorption further accelerating surface ice melt.
More importantly, warmed ocean water is accelerating ice melt in both polar regions. The warming North Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Ocean have been accelerating ice melt all around Greenland since about 1995 as this dense, ‘warm’ ocean water enters the deep outlet glacial fjords that penetrate far in under the Ice Sheet. ‘Warm’ water from upwelling because of increased wind shear around Antarctica is also penetrating in under outlet glaciers to the West Antarctic and East Antarctic Ice Sheets. Each of these ‘warm’ waters are only 2-4 degrees Celsius, but are doing a powerful amount of warming, and we are creating a basically unlimited supply of warmth to the oceans.
The beginnings of polar Ice Sheet melt are showing positive reinforcing feedbacks which are rapidly accelerating the rate of melt far beyond anything originally anticipated. Water on the melting ice surface adsorbs more heat accelerating surface melt; melt water percolating down through the ice lubricates the base permitting faster motion, which results in more extensive fracturing. Water percolating through the fractured ice accelerates ice melt and warms the ice resulting in softening of the ice and further acceleration. And so on. With the rapid melting of the Arctic Ocean pack ice and warming of the Arctic Ocean, release of additional carbon dioxide and methane from decaying organics in the melted permafrost and melting of methane hydrates on the Arctic continental shelf, this melt is accelerating and seems irreversible. We are most certainly witnessing the onset of a rapid pulse of sea level rise…
Storm surges will become exponentially more damaging as sea levels rise. Global warming will amplify and increase the frequency of super El Niños and anomalies like the “Blob”. This year’s record storms will be the new normal in coming years. If you live in Florida(aka the new Atlantis), sell your home while you can.
Update January 30, 2016:
Update February 6, 2016:
Nonlinear factors will likely bring unpleasant surprises.
Update February 10, 2016:
Update February 22, 2016:
Update February 24, 2016:
Update March 8, 2016:
Update March 14, 2016:
It appears that, unless societies make significant changes, we will see approximately 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100. That may not sound like a lot, but it’s enough to cause enormous economic and societal problems. What’s great about this paper is they also include a discussion on the limitations of their work. For instance, they state that their method cannot deal with processes that are independent of the warming rate (such as a sudden collapse of an ice sheet).
Update March 26, 2016:
Update March 31, 2016:
minor typo 4 lines below florida map.should be we’ll.(delete, no need to reply)
LikeLike
Sharp reader. Always enjoy your comments.
LikeLike
An ominous coastal future, yes. We should be aware that the building of structures to withstand the advance of sea levels over the next few decades will require tremendous amounts of portland cement and concrete. Cement (the gray powder used to make concrete) is made by burning finely ground raw materials (limestone, sandstone, shale,++) in a kiln at approximately 2700 degrees F. Cement production is presently rated at number 5 or 6 (depending on your source) in CO2 contribution to our atmosphere. Practical emissions control from the burning of limestone, largely calcium CARBONate, have yet to be developed. Additionally, there may be some technical reasons that building extensive seawalls may not be all that effective in the long term.
LikeLike
I believe cement production accounts for 7% of GHG emissions. And its lifespan isn’t all that great.
LikeLike
Pingback from Salty Oblivion Awaited:
LikeLike
Indeed.
No doubt.
Also, there is a good chance that the catastrophe SLR is ~3 feet or ~one meter (New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage – 12). This could happen in one generation.
LikeLike
…Thousands of glaciers in B.C. and Alberta are expected to lose 60 to 80 per cent of their combined volume compared to 2005, depending on how much CO2 gets added to the atmosphere between now and the end of the century.
Many of the glaciers in the Rockies will disappear altogether, predicts the new study published Monday in Nature Geoscience. In the Interior and Rockies regions, “ice area and volume losses will exceed 90 per cent,” except in the most optimistic climate change scenario considered, it says. Glaciers in coastal northwestern British Columbia are expected to “survive in a diminished state.”…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/how-western-canada-glaciers-will-melt-away-1.3022242
LikeLike
All of the non-polar ice melt adds up to 1.48 feet of global SLR.
Greenland ice melt adds another 21.40 ft.
Antarctica ice melt adds another 240.53 ft.
(The Agnotology of Sea Level Rise Via Ice Melt).
LikeLike
A good question is “how much SLR” would be catastrophic to modern civilization. I think it is just a fraction of what we have already locked in. For a specific factoid on what only half a meter would do:
“An added 0.5 meters (20 inches) of ocean water by the year 2050 would put $28 trillion in assets at risk in the world’s 136 port megacities, according to a 2009 report of scientists and insurance experts assembled by World Wide Fund/Allianz, a global investment and insurance company.”
http://environment.harvard.edu/node/3272
LikeLike
“A good question is “how much SLR” would be catastrophic to modern civilization. I think it is just a fraction of what we have already locked in.”
Me too.
LikeLike
Pingback: Catastrophic Sea Level Rise within Three Genera...
I think the thing I love the most about this whole situation is that we still have the luxury of saying “oh, that’s interesting” and then going back to our daily routine of mass consumption.
Now, that said, should I live to see the days when all hell breaks loose then, yes, I won’t be quite so sanguine, but until such time as that happens I’m simply not going to worry about it and learn to appreciate every moment of relative peace and prosperity.
Selfish? Unrealistic? Fatalistic? Call it what you like, but once you accept the thermodynamic reality that every single system in the universe, both living and non-living, will self-organize to maximize available energy and resources, then you start to understand that we, as a species, have been extraordinarily successful at doing just that and, furthermore, if we just happen to trash the planet in the process…, oh, well! There is simply no point in getting all worked up about it.
So, here’s a hearty “cheers” to every single precious moment that we can simply relax, make another cup of coffee, and surf some more doomer porn. Hooray for empire at its peak!
LikeLike
Since those in leadership positions have a much greater representation of psychopaths than the general population there can be little doubt that draconian solutions, lacking in empathy or feeling, will be implemented. Genocide is common throughout human history, a barbaric side-effect of tribalism. Odd that it has not occurred already, considering the implications of continued fossil fuel metabolism and growth in human numbers. I can only guess that they care as little for their offspring and their future as they care for the masses of low-wage slaves that provide them with comfortable livings.
What does behavioral economics have to say? That serotonin levels can be restored for the depressed by eliminating five or six billion people from the planet? That the shortest path between point A and point B will be chosen by algorithms operating beneath the facade of consciousness? Who will lead the new “master race” other than some petty tyrant that congeals hatred against outsiders, whoever that may be.
We haven’t been circumspect and reasoned so far and there’s no reason to think we will be in the future. Perhaps we’ll build more nuclear plants so we can have the energy to build sea walls in addition to running giant pumps to turn back the seas. If you’ve got energy, then blow it, doesn’t much matter on what as long as you can skim a profit. If you don’t blow it, someone else will steal it and blow it for you. Blow it on weapons you can use to steal yet more energy-rich territory, rinse and repeat until the entire planet is completely wasted. Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Yemen, we’re just getting started. In the near future we’ll likely need a new wasteful government agency, Department of Magical Thinking and Sea Wall Construction. The writing is on the wall. Punctuated equilibrium awaits.
LikeLike
Speaking of exponential growth:
Graph of the Day: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, 1751-2012
5 April 2015 (Desdemona Despair) – Recently, there’s been discussion about a possible decoupling between global financial growth and carbon dioxide emissions, so Desdemona decided to check in on recent CO2 emission data. The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) maintains a database of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions, which has been updated with preliminary data to 2012.
It turns out that the growth of human carbon emissions is pretty close to exponential, with an R2 value of 0.988 for the default Excel curve fit. The spike in emissions from coal that starts around 2002 is the biggest contributor to recent total emissions. Given the persistence of the exponential growth over the past two centuries, it seems unlikely that anything in the foreseeable future will bend the curve downward.
You can get the data and related graphs here: Global CO2 Emissions 1751-2010 CDIAC.xlsx.
LikeLike
New record on 4/6 at Mauna Loa: 404.35! We certainly don’t show any sign of slowing down, eh?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
LikeLike
Sadly, no.
LikeLike
Ocean ‘dead zones’ are spreading – and that spells disaster for fish
Falling ocean oxygen levels due to rising temperatures and influence from human activities such as agrochemical use is an increasingly widespread problem. Considering that the sea floors have taken more than 1,000 years to recover from past eras of low oxygen, according to a recent University of California study, this is a serious problem.
Ocean regions with low oxygen levels have a huge impact on aquatic organisms and can even destroy entire ecosystems. Areas of extremely low oxygen, known as oxygen minimum zones or “dead zones”, are estimated to constitute 10% and rising of the world’s ocean.
This expansion has been attributed to a warming climate, which increases water temperature, changes ocean circulation, and decreases the solubility of oxygen in sea water. At the same time fertiliser and pesticide run-off from farming and other human activities leads to rising levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous reaching the sea.
Together, these two processes speed up the release of chemicals from ocean sediments and promote algal blooms. Subsequent algal death and decay result in increased consumption of oxygen in the water. The result is that other aquatic species such as invertebrates on the seafloor and fish suffocate for lack of oxygen.
Due to circulation and runoff effects, dead zones are especially severe around large cities on the western continental coasts such as the coast of Peru, and within enclosed or semi-enclosed regions like the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Mexico.
Looking to the past
What effects will these changes have? We don’t yet know how great the effects of human-caused climate change will be, nor how much can be done to try and mitigate the effects on the environment. Even if oceanic oxygen levels rise again, will the world’s ocean ecosystems be able to recover?
The University of California study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, studies fossils of over 5,400 sea animals including seed shrimps, molluscs, and brittle stars in order to try and answer this question. By examining seafloor sediments the researchers assessed how global warming affected sealife during the transition from the last ice age to the more-recent interglacial period, between 17,000-3,000 years ago.
What the study found was that within only 130 years the oceans underwent devastating changes that led to complete collapse of invertebrates on the seafloor. More worryingly, the fossil records show that ecosystem recovery took at least 1,000 years.
So the current growth of dead zones could leave drastic and long-lasting changes to marine life biodiversity. Climate change caused by human activity has already caused significant environmental damage over a relatively short time – the vast increase in pollution, ocean acidification, overfishing and deforestation in just the last 50-100 years, for example. However long it takes us to reverse the effects of global warming, if indeed we can, it will likely take ocean ecosystems many orders of magnitude longer to recover.
Headed for collapse?
Though microscopic organisms residing in the ocean and on the seafloor might seem to have little relevance to us, even small changes in ocean ecosystems can have enormous effects on the entire ocean food chain, from the smallest bacteria to the largest fish. Any impact on the creatures higher up in the food chain will have a massive impact on the human communities that rely on them economically and as a food source.
Studies have shown that populations of mid-water fish such as Pacific hake decreased by up to 60% during periods of low oxygen off the coast of Southern California.
Conversely, numbers of Humboldt squid, which are more tolerant of low-oxygen waters, have increased significantly in the same location. Even the fish that can survive in dead zones are not faring well: large numbers of female Atlantic Croaker have been found to be growing testes-like organs instead of ovaries, a sexual deformation which causes infertility.
Feedback loop
Any shifts in ecosystem biodiversity can lead to a vicious feedback loop: dead zone seafloors turn into biodiversity deserts, where little but methane- and hydrogen sulphide-producing bacteria survive. Paired with changes in nutrient cycling which result in the release of nitrogen gas, levels of greenhouse gases being released from the ocean to the atmosphere increase and contribute to further global warming…
LikeLike
Here is a fun little thought experiment anyone can try at home:
Buy a big jug of your favorite apple cider, or mix up a big batch from frozen concentrate. Be sure to get the kind with no preservatives added.
Warm the cider up on the stove, not too hot, maybe 80 – 90 deg F. Add a generous helping of sugar, dark brown sugar is best but white sugar will do.
Now add a teaspoon or two of dry activated yeast, nothing fancy, the kind you can get at the supermarket is fine.
If all goes well you should start to see foam on the top of the cider as the yeast go to work. Do not seal the jug air tight, but do cover it tightly with several layers of paper towel.
Put the jug in a warm cupboard, add a small lamp with 60 watt bulb or better if you live in a cold climate.
If conditions are right then over the next few days you should see CO2 fizzing away from the cider as the yeast madly proliferate and consume the seemingly vast abundance of food.
Take a few moments, or days, to contemplate the fate of the yeast. Soon they will have rendered their world uninhabitable as they either consume all available resources or poison their environment with waste, or both.
Do the yeast wail in despair at this fate? Do they angrily demand their fellow brethren immediately stop proliferating and stop consuming precious resources?
Not likely.
After 4 or 5 days, maybe a week tops, the fizzing will stop and most of the yeast will have died. Does this seem a catastrophe to the yeast as they watch in horror, billions of corpses piling up around them?
Perhaps.
Now reward yourself with a big glass of the hard cider from the jug. Feel the euphoria as the alcohol, so generously produced by the yeast, enters your bloodstream.
Life is good!
LikeLike
10 billion humans will make a good substrate for a novel virus that has mutated to flourish in our entropic wasteland.
LikeLike
10 yrs – no water for 4 billion
30 yrs – unstoppable mass extinction starts
60 yrs – human agriculture ends
70 yrs – unbreathable air
How can we have to grow more food in 50 yrs than in the last 500?
Because of something stupid as math.
We need 6 million hectares of new farmland per year.
We lose 12 million hectares of farmland per year.
This means earth has 60 years of agriculture left.
Because of something stupid as math
How can a 1% annual decline of plankton mean no plankton in 70 years?
Because of something stupid as math.
We can breathe easy because plankton don’t do math.
LikeLike
Thank god I didn’t have any kids, and if it wasn’t for the selfishness of the Catholic Church, my mother wouldn’t had me either.
LikeLike
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFD6DRn0Cg&feature=youtu.be
What a joke.
Maybe Monsanto needs to develop GMOs that intentionally decrease fertility levels in humans. Not saying they haven’t already.
LikeLike
Jeeze Louise
LikeLike
I’m considering becoming a faux vanilla misogynist to reach more people, but my wife might kill me. e.g.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Permaculture/comments/31v4jm/why_barbie_hates_math_educating_women/
LikeLike
Presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wants a return of American values, good jobs, growth………a return to the halcyon days of the past. Don’t they realize that’s impossible, that we’ve eaten our white bread and the Chinese and Indians amongst others are in the process of eating the crust. There’s never going to be a return, we’re on a linear path to hell and all the politicians can do is pander to the concretized belief systems in this country that pass for thinking minds. People that are dying do this too, relive some moments of the past, fantasize, as the system gradually goes down. But gosh durn, we’re that plucky hominid species that can do just about anything we set our minds to, be it mine the clathrates on the bottom of the oceans or drill for oil in an ice free arctic.
The subconscious human mind controls much of our economic behavior, limiting our activities to those that provide for our needs as organisms and when we transition into consciousness we transfer those subconscious algorithms into explicit profit and loss statements. Conscious humans are the subconscious of a technological growth that has yet to develop consciousness. But the conscious humans in their drive for economic gain are themselves controlled by subconscious processes.
The technological system may never evolve consciousness before it consumes everything and goes extinct. If a technological system were to evolve consciousness, there’s no guarantee that it would be any smarter or conservative than we are, but rather it would be obsessed with obtaining energy and growing as a reflection of impulses obtained from the lower level of what it would consider “subconscious” humans.
And if this energy/resource obsessed entity speciated, then with the energy and technology it would necessarily possess, the different competing species would make short work of the planet. We are already helping it make short work of the planet even before it becomes conscious. Maybe if it became conscious and recognized itself as an ecosystem destroying cancer, it would put an ICBM to its head and push the button.
LikeLike
Why should I worry about the future being a member of the greatest life form,past,present & future,in all 11 dimensions? There isn’t any need to take any personal responsibility.
Being exceptional is so wonderful.
FMTT,twice.
LikeLike
For those wondering about the source of the Florida sea-level-rise picture, it’s from a study done by Jeremy Weiss and Jonathan Overpeck, scientists at U of A. Their website is here: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/mapping_slr/
“Using computer models, scientists at the University of Arizona Department of Geosciences have created maps that show areas susceptible to rises in sea level (in red). The following map shows that a 6-meter (20-foot) rise would flood Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and the entire Florida coastline, as well as parts of Orlando and other inland areas. Most of the city of New Orleans, Louisiana will disappear under water if the sea rises six meters.” – Link
LikeLike
“Since 1750, we have emitted about the same amount of CO2 as existed in the entire pre-industrial atmosphere. Had it not been for natural sinks of CO2, concentrations in the air would have doubled by now.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/EmmissionsAcceleration.html
LikeLike
56 Northeast Brazilian cities are in a water crisis: In Rio & Sao Paulo, rains below average & reservoirs have not recovered
“In another meeting of the government to assess the water crisis gripping part of the country, the diagnosis is that in the Northeast, there are now 56 cities in a state of collapse, that is, for more than four days without water.”
LikeLike
Pingback from Democratic Underground:

LikeLike
“Bruuns Rule states that on average each 1cm of sea level rise results in about 1m of coastal recession. In other words, for each meter of sea level rise, the coastline is eroded, over time, by 100 meters. While this Rule has global application, coastal erosion in the Arctic is occurring at a much faster rate than predicted because of permafrost thawing and exposure of shorelines to wave action.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1051
LikeLike
Predictions for the Future: A Grim Outlook
As the world continues to experience higher temperatures leading to greater thermal expansion and ice melt, future sea level predictions are troubling. In 2007, the IPCC estimated sea levels will rise between seven and twenty-three inches this century, creating “worsen[ed] coastal flooding and erosion during storm surges.” This prediction is likely inaccurate, however, considering sea levels rose at a rate sixty-percent faster than the IPCC’s projected rate for 1993 to 2011. Environmentalists look at this excessively low past prediction and infer “that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.” Although many environmentalists stress this IPCC projection is low, some courts and agencies remain unwilling to recognize the excessive dangers of any sea level rise higher than the IPCC’s projection. In Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Trust) challenged a revised environmental impact report for a proposed coastal project. The Trust cautioned against taking on projects in coastal areas, citing a paper by the California Climate Change Center that noted the risks of such projects to inhabitants of coastal areas. Entitled “The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast,” the paper warned developers of the risks of “a significant sea level rise . .. as a result of global climate change.” In response, the City of Los Angeles stated that the paper’s sea level projection “represented an extreme worst case scenario, relied on a faulty methodology, and overstated the flood risk.” Providing a report from an engineer rather than an environmentalist, the city claimed that the IPCC’s significantly lower projection provided a “more reliable estimate of sea level rise,” than the Trust’s projection. Finding for the city, the court concluded that the IPCC projections provided an adequate estimate of sea level rise for the environmental impact report and subsequently permitted the coastal development. Other courts faced with the issue of rising sea levels should recognize, contrary to the result in Ballona, that the IPCC’s prediction for the coming century may be excessively low because it does not factor in a possible ice melt acceleration. The general opinion of environmentalists is that sea level rise over the next century is going to be far worse than indicated by the IPCC’s projections. The IPCC’s excessively conservative projections pose serious implications for coastal areas around the United States where water levels are increasing at rates higher than the global average. Without accurately estimating the actual figures for potential sea level increases, these areas will be unprepared for the imminent danger that lies ahead…
…Although the government is aware of the threats of rising sea levels, including the potential destruction of cities such as New York City, New Orleans, and Miami, it is doing little to respond to these risks. Instead of working to minimize coastal cities’ exposure to rising sea levels, “government policies are encouraging development in the areas most vulnerable to sea-level rise.” In Miami, Florida’s government is “racing to subsidize new developments along the coast, through state-run insurance and funding for coastal protection,” while nationwide, the federal government is “encouraging construction on coastal property that’s most at risk from sea-level rise.” As illustrated by Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Massachusetts, some government officials are still unwilling to acknowledge that sea level rise causes particularly significant and concerning coastland loss. Although Congress recognizes the need to prepare for sea level rise, it provides little guidance on how this should be done. By not fully combating the effects of rising sea levels, the government is creating problems for itself both in the way of regulatory takings claims, and ultimately, the destruction of valuable coastal communities… – Excerpts from a paper written for Villanova University School of Law
LikeLike
LikeLike
Exponential, Exponential, Exponential
Arctic sea ice decline has not been linear, but exponential. In addition, old ice has been replaced by much newer, thinner ice to the point that algae is now growing underneath the surface of the ice. Just this winter, a new record low was recorded.
More recently:
IPCC linear modeling had Arctic sea ice disappearing by the end of this century, but it’s happening this decade. The IPCC is corrupted by corporate interests…
An exponential trend was confirmed a couple years ago…
PIOMAS data confirm exponential trend
Freshwater ice melt from inland glaciers is not the same as old sea ice
Any increases in Arctic sea ice are new ice formed by freshwater that has melted off inland glaciers. As glaciers melt, they pour cold freshwater into the ocean. This freshwater is less dense and easier to freeze than salty seawater. If this is accounted for, then any “higher minima” of sea ice goes out the window and an exponential trend is clear. You can still have upward fluctuations on a downward trend. That is the same thing that has happened in the Antarctic which climate change deniers cling to as proof that everything is OK.
Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice is Flooding ‘Warning Bell’
Arctic melt leading to weakest Gulf Stream in a 1,000 years
From NOAA:
Very little old sea ice remains in the Arctic(updated through 2014 melt season)
Classifications of sea ice(new ice, nilas, young ice, first-year and old) are explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
LikeLike
An overriding neurotic impulse to control is industrial man’s downfall…
Could scientists engineer synthetic organisms to stop climate change?
Scientists and politicians the world over are looking for ways to halt or reverse [climate changes], a task that is fraught with difficulties in a world hooked on fossil fuels. One option increasingly discussed is terraforming—deliberately altering the environment in a way that cools the planet… Instead of creating global engineering projects, why not create life forms that do a similar job instead… — MIT Technology Review
Ricard Sole and his associates at the ICREA-Complex Systems Lab in Barcelona are experimenting with the potentials of using synthetic organisms to terraform the planet. One advantage to such a project – as opposed to other terraforming ideas that would require engineering feats of unprecedented scale – is that the landscape could be changed with minimal human input, using “the growth and colonizing potential that life offers.”
Of course, as the article notes, the potential problems are also massive, like, for example, unintentionally triggering feedback mechanisms that accelerate global warming, or devastate global food supplies. Looking back at other historical attempts to engineer biology to suit human interests, this seems a more likely outcome than not. But Sole and his team are trying to develop preventative measures against such runaway growth. And as the article notes, one day this may be an urgent necessity: “if and when that day comes, let’s hope we’ll be glad of the research that has characterized how this terraforming will occur.”
LikeLike
New site – because one can never get enough DOOM.
The Netflix Wall, the Netflix Fall
http://www.nyet-flix.com/posts/2015/april/the-netflix-wall-the-netflix-fall/
LikeLike
Your Netflix habit uses more energy than your fridge:
The cloud is a major electricity drain — and large parts remain powered by coal
LikeLike
It pales in comparison to my internet porn habit.
LikeLike
Which pales in comparison to my internet doom habit.
LikeLike
putting the fun in a downward spiral
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Triassic mass extinction may give clues on how oceans will be affected by climate change
“Different types of biomarkers signify the presence of certain groups of organisms and allow us to track their abundance in Triassic oceans. Our results show that for a 600,000-year interval immediately after the end-Triassic mass extinction, water close to the ocean surface became devoid of oxygen and was poisoned by hydrogen sulphide, a by-product of anaerobic bacteria that is extremely toxic to most other forms of life. This oxygen depletion and hydrogen sulphide poisoning disrupted the availability of nutrients, altering the food chains and causing a major disruption of marine ecosystems.”
https://theconversation.com/triassic-mass-extinction-may-give-clues-on-how-oceans-will-be-affected-by-climate-change-39655
LikeLike
Nature is Intelligent, humans are merely smart.
LikeLike
Too bad we didn’t just make do with the old “intelligence”, the wordless, unspoken intelligence that the rest of nature uses. Instead we reduced nature into definable quanta and gave them names that could be manipulated, mixed and metaphored. We fed all of that information into a new system of technology. Space and time, difficult to capture by the mind’s eye, fell to the language of mathematics. And now here we are, intelligent if we were still in the ecosystem, but stupid within the technological system we’ve created. All of the intelligence in nature was created by wiping out the less well adapted and, wait and see, we will be wiped out in exactly the same fashion, because the technological system is in no way well-adapted to its environment, it’s stupid.
I was just thinking about the human ability to perceive and differentiate an incredible amount of color and the possibility that this only enhanced our ability to draw contrast between objects in the environment and thereby increase our reductionist vocabulary to increase the number of things upon which we could act. Each object newly named to be added to our verbal pool for deliberate and accidental recombination. The mind greatly influenced by the emotions would surmise that all of the beautiful colors were put there so that man could more fully enjoy God’s creation, or perhaps even though they perceive a great color range, their minds never bothered to fully incorporate the spoken and written names for the objects. Instead you may hear “You know, you know, you know……. as the visual image appears in their minds, but the spoken and written counterparts draw a blank.
The ants that have found their way onto my desk search its surface with sensory antennae. How many pheromonal words do they have? How many different “flavors” can their antennae pick up and does it create an image in their brains? Like humans, I’m sure the ants are very moral and even more tribalistic resulting in their warring ways. “It is certain that that there may be extraordinary mental activity with an extremely small absolute mass of nervous matter: thus the wonderfully diversified instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are notorious, yet their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small pin’s head. Under this point of view, the brain of an ant is one of the most marvelous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more so than the brain of a man.” – “The Descent of Man” by Charles Darwin. The brain to body weight ratio is perhaps 1:7 in ants and 1:40 in man. Can you imagine ants becoming cancerous like humans, creating tools…………….nah, never could have happened, no free appendages to make the tools and information, although it could have been powerful and with their tribalism they could have used it to wipe out all the competing ants, sort of like we humans have.
LikeLike
Fun fun fun in the summer sun
http://www.envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/nick-breeze-blogs/111-survivable-ipcc-projections-are-based-on-science-fiction
LikeLike
A couple of interesting docs:
LikeLike
And my favorite movie these days… ‘It Follows’. Excellent cinematography, excellent soundtrack, excellent lead actress, not much blood and guts but more cerebral and suggestive, excellent backdrop of decaying Detroit and retro 70’s/80’s atmosphere. This movie creeped me out.
LikeLike
It’s OK he got’s a peace prize.
LikeLike
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/arctic-sea-ice-at-record-low-on-april-9-2015.html
LikeLike
The rush to humiliate the poor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rush-to-humiliate-the-poor/2015/04/07/8795b192-dd67-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?postshare=391428516662506
LikeLike
I live and work around this area and we are in the process of moving out. Yes, what I know is affecting where we will be moving to — Pacific NW, but ultimately there is no safe place to run to. Nevertheless, the American SW is ground zero.
LikeLike
You are still better off moving to the PNW than staying. At least you buy some time- relieve some anxiety. When it gets worse in the SW you will see that you made the correct decision.
LikeLike
Okay, this is the jumping the shark moment.
Buy some time for what exactly. In the expectation of seeing things turn around for a bigger, brighter, better future.
Or more time to watch more and more people die around you.
I would think watching it unfold for a longer period of time is only going to bring on more anxiety over time especially if you are one of the small number of people who understands what the hell is actually going on while the hordes around you wind up behaving like the “women” who went on the violence binge at that McDonalds in Brooklyn, NY a few weeks ago.
Have you looked at the drought map recently. That PNW seems awful iffy in recent days as the colors are moving away from the white towards the yellow and orange.
Right, there is no where to really go. And we are watching the situation in the early stages of exponential growth. We’ve had the luxury of watching those years where “nothing” seemed to be happening as it was happening so slow.
Imagine Miami where you can’t say Sea Level Rise or Climate Change and having to watch as some fool expert is saying how building water pumps is a good idea. I wonder who are already trying to offload their property to the fool who thinks real estate is a good investment.
LikeLike
There’s a historic “climate change” case going on right now in Eugene that was brought to the Oregon courts by a couple of teenage girls. This sounds very admirable, but will prove to be to no avail. Here’s a statement by one of them:
We’ll still be reproducing like rabbits no matter how bad it gets, but dying like flies.
LikeLike
The comments to the newspaper article are a representative, and depressing, snapshot of the attitudinizing that seemingly always attends coverage of climate-change awareness: outright denial, gotchas, frantic gesticulating, mantra-muttering and always, always the reverential unfurling of someone’s counterintuitive pet theory (the coming new ice age).
LikeLike
It’s only going to bring on more anxiety until there is a systems-break. The cork will pop out of the bottle and people will come out of their collective trance, when the realization dawns that the stores are about to close, money no longer works, the gladiators have deserted the stadium, the bread is no longer to be had, and the next power outage will be “the big one.” And that day surely is not far off.
Treasure the fact that you are one of the few who realize what is going on, and enjoy the few days remaining when you can, like a thief, proceed according to your will. Because, soon, when, seemingly out of nowhere, every half-educated rube suddenly realizes the true state of affairs, it will be borne home to you that you are just one of several billion rushing for the exit, and no one will be the slightest bit interested in the fact that you knew what was coming before they did, and did nothing.
LikeLike
“Buy some time for what exactly.” Just time PMB. What else can a family do?
LikeLike
And that I can respect and understand.
Only I’m in a small minority that that’s the only thing people will have.
Will most people appreciate that time is all they have? I think most won’t and will complain and act out until the bitter end.
If you’ve got a family that respects and trusts each other and has each others backs you’ve got the greatest gift available. For that I envy you.
Will they be able to hold up under the every increasing pressure? I’m not sure that is a question that can be answered until TSHTF.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Humans’ love for simple stories and status quo make opinions intractable in face of fact.
“Religions and ideologies play into the hero plot since they match up well with the individual’s moral hunches and provide external justification. They validate emotional instincts, provide purpose and a common enemy.”
“Cognitive psychologist Eryn Newman, who works out of the University of California–Irvine, recently uncovered an unsettling precondition for truthiness: The less effort it takes to process a factual claim, the more accurate it seems. ”
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/humans-love-for-simple-stories-and-status-quo-make-opinions-intractable-in-face-of-fact/
LikeLike
The Unpersuadables
“Storr found that discussing evolution with religious fundamentalists was:
…like being a tourist in another Universe… Simple facts and basic logic just don’t work the way I had assumed… facts proved entirely ineffective, and they were ineffective to a spectacular and baffling extent.
The answers they gave to his reasonable questions were often hilarious. If T. rex was a vegetarian, why did he have such big teeth? To eat watermelons.”
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-unpersuadables/
LikeLike
Just checking to see if internet service in Oregon is better than in Arizona. Not!!!!…
LikeLike
Just hope there are no disgruntled former ISP employees in Oregon like there were in AZ a while back.
LikeLike
What would one expect if an ape or some other well-controlled species within the ecosystem rather suddenly evolved the ability to coordinate activity with speech, thereby becoming a tribe, in the same way that cells became multicellular? It means a magnification of predatory success for a little extra energy expended in the brain. But perhaps it was the hand, using signs, that constituted the first language and syntax to be augmented by the more expansive capabilities of enunciation. It’s just a short step for the hand, already trained in language, to begin writing symbols for spoken sounds. Association works. Voila! The human DNA is born to be passed down from generation to generation, to be worked, reworked and mutated into the most effective tools for the new greedy organism, the cancer to end all cancers. This was not a sloooooooooooow evolution, but rather fast, like the cumulative damage in a cell’s DNA that suddenly releases it from its natural bounds.
Oh, the wondrous civilization we have built, growing just as fast as it can, using all energy within its reach, its subsidiary humans reaching, reaching for immortality and escape from limitation only to find themselves imprisoned within a technological infrastructure that demands absolute obedience and control of their lives, glued together by a folksy religious morality, codified into law and meant to maximize industrial efficiency and profit. The “release” and your technological confinement will be short-lived, poor ape. Look inside ape, 525,000 of you in the United States will die of your own cancers this year, 2015, but that will be nothing compared to the warfare and famine brought forth by the struggles to feed a stupendously large technological malignant growth that can no longer be fed within the dying matrix of life.
LikeLike
“…What is the maximum possible sea-level rise? It depends who you ask. Many sources place the maximum potential sea-level rise at around 60-64 metres, but these figures are rarely referenced, and don’t concur with the latest research. Other sources place the figure at around 80-81.5 metres, and while this appears to be well referenced and researched, it is based on work that is somewhat out of date. The best estimates I’ve been able to locate, based on recent measurements (and lots of them) are around 70 metres, but quite what the margin of error is remains uncertain. Of course, when considering future sea-level, we must remember that here in the South Pacific, we will likely experience increased numbers of more powerful tropical storms, with associated storm surges.
The maps I created showing sea-level rise for the whole of New Zealand depict rises of 10, 25 and 80 metres. I have certainly received criticism for not focussing on more modest sea-level rises (e.g. 1 or 2 metres), but there are some good reasons for this: firstly, the resolution of the elevation models of New Zealand do not allow accurate predictions of such small rises. Secondly, larger sea-level rises pose a huge threat, and are therefore worth considering. I made a point of avoiding time frame predictions when producing the sea-level rise maps, partly because the time frame is largely irrelevant (if 80% of our homes are flooded, it’s bad news, no matter when) and partly because the range of expert estimates is huge. Study after study shows that we have underestimated ice-sheet instability, and it is almost universally accepted that large sea-level rise will be a consequence. Unfortunately, most studies place this sea-level rise at some unspecified time in the future – when, we’re not sure, but it’s far enough away that we needn’t worry…
So is a 10 or 25 metre sea-level rise likely? Unfortunately, the broad answer is yes. The Greenland, West and East Antarctic ice sheets are showing growing instability, and many researchers agree that they may have past a ‘point of no return’. Remember, the Greenland ice sheet alone, if completely melted, would lead to approximately a 7 m rise in global sea-level. Of course, we return to the issue of when this is likely to happen, and on that, the jury is out.
I firmly believe that to be good scientists, we must investigate the possibility of large sea-level rise, and its consequences. The time frame is unclear, the absolute rise is also unclear, but there really is something unstoppable about rising oceans. We are now well outside the sphere of collective human experience and expertise, and we should be very careful to prepare, as best we can, for a range of scenarios.”
THE ENCROACHING SEA: NEW NZ SEA LEVEL RISE MAPS
LikeLike
LikeLike
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/fukushima-news-04132015.html
LikeLike
I asked Paul what he thought of people who say that not enough data has been accumulated for an exponential growth pattern to be recognized in land ice melt?

I say: “I suppose it’s too difficult to face a reality that most find incomprehensible.”
LikeLike
Dr. James Hansen:
Fig. 1 shows that Greenland has been losing mass at a faster and faster rate over the past decade, with the recent rate corresponding to ~1 mm sea level per year (1 mm sea level = 360 Gt ice). The linear fit to the Shepherd et al. data in Fig. 1 yields a Greenland contribution to global sea level of about 30 cm by 2100.
The increasing Greenland mass loss in Fig. 1 can be fit just as well by exponentially increasing annual mass loss, a behavior that Hansen (2005, 2007) argues could occur because of multiple amplifying feedbacks as an ice sheet begins to disintegrate. A 10-year doubling time would lead to 1 meter sea level rise by 2067 and 5 meters by 2090. The dates are 2045 and 2057 for 5-year doubling time and 2055 and 2071 for a 7-year doubling time.
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/12/03/nasa-antarctic-melting-triples/
Also…
Click to access GreenlandIceMass.pdf
LikeLike
“A 10-year doubling time would lead to 1 meter sea level rise by …”
The loss doubled in 5 years recently (2009-2013) for ice volume loss in Greenland and Antarctica (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In Sea Level Rise?).
Antarctica is slated to lose more ice volume annually than Greenland because it has the greater current acceleration rate.
Considering them separately will soon leave out half of the picture.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Author: Bob Bingham
Comment:
“I would not want to contradict Hansen as he is a hero of mine but AProff Andrew Macintosh of the Antarctic Research Centre said that the rate of ice melt has a physical limit that will not allow huge increases in such short periods. Two metres is easily enough to bankrupt the economies of every country in the world and start massive wars.”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-encroaching-sea-new-nz-sea-level-rise-maps/#comment-46237
LikeLike
Peak rate of SLR during the last deglaciation was about 4m per century, and that was with an overall global warming rate only about 1/40th of what it is now. The planet’s ice is in a different configuration today, without large continental ice sheets on Europe, Asia and North America, but I haven’t seen anything that rules out multiple metres of SLR per century. The question is how soon that could plausibly happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Unfortunately, over the past several years, support has crumbled for the tidy belief that ice sheets require millennia to disintegrate.
First, as I argued in my 2005 ‘Slippery Slope’ paper and discussed in Chapter 5, it became clear that the ice sheet models fail to incorporate physics components that are critical during ice sheet collapse. This deficiency has been confirmed by the models’ inability to simulate the rapid changes observed on Greenland and Antarctica during the past few years.
Second, the belief that ice sheets are inherently lethargic is based mainly on the average rate at which they grew and decayed during Earth’s history. The overall size of ice sheets grew and decayed over tens of thousands of years. But the ice sheets responded slowly because that was the time scale for changes of Earth’s orbit—the time scale for the forcings that caused ice sheets to grow or melt. Those slow orbital changes imply nothing about how fast the ice sheets would respond to a rapid forcing. On the contrary, as I and five coauthors showed in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2007, during the deglaciation there was no discernible lag between the time of maximum solar forcing of the ice sheet and the maximum rate of melt (maximum rate of sea level rise). In other words, Paleoclimate data indicate that ice sheets are able to respond rapidly, with large changes within a century. Sea level 13,000 to 14,000 years ago rose at a rate of 3 to 5 meters (10 to 17 feet) per century for several centuries.
Third, evidence has mounted during the past several years that it is not unusual for sea level to fluctuate by several meters within an interglacial period. The most comprehensive study for the immediately prior interglacial period was published by geologist Paul Hearty and several colleagues in 2007. They showed, from sedimentary and fossil evidence on the shorelines of Australia, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and other locations, that sea level was about 2 meters above the present level for most of the interglacial period, but near the end of it, about 120,000 years ago, sea level increased to a maximum between 6 and 9 meters higher than today. The additional water must have come from Antarctica, Greenland, or some combination of the two.
The Hearty study and others show that the sea level stability of the late Holocene cannot be taken for granted. The Holocene’s stable sea level, so far, may be related to the fact that temperature peaked early in the Holocene and at a level slightly cooler than in most interglacial periods—and this peak warming was followed by a slight cooling trend.
Whatever the reason for sea level stability, it helped spur the development of civilization, as mentioned earlier. The stable sea level not only provided early humans with a high-protein marine food supply, but it also made possible grain production in estuary and floodplain ecosystems. With these conditions, food for the human population could be produced by a fraction of the people, thus allowing a transition from the Neolithic way of life to urban social life and the development of complex state-governed societies.
The period of stable sea level is almost surely over…”
~ James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe…
“…Humans, by burning fossil fuels, are now increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2 ppm per year. In other words, the human climate forcing is four orders of magnitude—ten thousand times—more powerful than the natural forcing.”
~ James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe…
“The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years.”
IPCC Group I Summary Report, “The Physical Science Basis”
LikeLike
Excellent comment. I’ve been wondering for some time about the way sea level rise leveled off in the Holocene. Hansen in the quote above alludes to the point that the slight cooling of the last few thousand years may have averted some SLR that would otherwise have occurred, if global temperature had peaked at the Holocene Thermal Maximum and stayed there. We’ve probably committed the world to several metres of SLR just by the 0.8C or so of warming that has taken us back to the HTM temperature, and there is a lot more warming to come, even under the most optimistic scenarios. Palaeoclimate data pretty reliably points to around 20m per degree of global warming, in the long term. Lots of submerged real estate in our future…
LikeLike
“Palaeoclimate data pretty reliably points to around 20m per degree of global warming, in the long term. ”
This is true:
Scientists studying the geological record have determined that at slightly above current temperatures we are about 20 metres below what the sea level equilibrium should be.
http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/global-warming-means-20-metre-sea-level.html
LikeLike
“…The new record reveals a systematic equilibrium relationship between
global temperature and CO2 concentrations and sea-level changes
over the last five glacial cycles. Projection of this relationship to
today’s CO2 concentrations results in a sea-level at 25 (±5) metres
above the present. This is in close agreement with independent
sea-level data from the Middle Pliocene epoch, 3-3.5 million years
ago, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were similar to the
present-day value. This suggests that the identified relationship
accurately records the fundamental long-term equilibrium behaviour
of the climate system over the last 3.5 Million years….”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622103833.htm
LikeLike
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060016593
LikeLike
Interesting study suggests three times the volume of water in the oceans lies deep within the earth’s mantle–however not in a form typically found on or near the surface.
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/06/new-evidence-for-oceans-of-water-deep-in-the-earth.html
LikeLike
Is Renewable Energy looking like a ‘new religion’?
…MacKay has written a book titled “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” – available for free at MacKay’s website. More recently, MacKay presented a TEDx talk titled “How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options”.
In this TEDx talk, MacKay looks at the land use for RE resources. He calculated the power density in watts per sq. metre for wind, solar, water and plants/biomass (see Figure 1). All RE resources are diffuse…
…He then compares these power densities to the energy consumption per person and population density for countries around the world (see Figure 2). MacKay tells us that to use RE sources alone, you would need to consider the land use as “country” sized or at least a good part of the country. For example, to power the UK with RE alone would require about 25% of the total land area for the UK.
LikeLike
Northern fires caused almost 25% of global forest loss
Positive feedback loop: Warming planet = more fires = more CO2
Forest fires destroyed vast areas of woodland in Canada and Russia between 2011 and 2013, greatly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, satellite data reveals…
…Dr Nigel Sizer, study co-author and director of the forests programme for the World Resources Institute (WRI), said the increase of fires in northern forests had worrying implications for the climate. “If global warming is leading to more fires in boreal forests, which in turn leads to more emissions from those forests, which in turn leads to more climate change. This is one of those positive feedback loops that should be of great concern to policy makers.”
LikeLike
Interesting little read:
Economic Collapse Will Limit Climate Change, Predicts Climate Scientist
I actually saw this on Reddit and I commented:
The original title is “Economic Collapse Will Limit Climate Change, Predicts Climate Scientist”. If you read the article, it’s clear that what is said in the interview is that the economy won’t go away willingly until an overheated, chaotic planet makes organized civilization impossible to function. I would hardly say that this scenario will “limit the worst of climate change.” In fact, we have already locked in irreversible meltdown of all continental glaciers and set in motion catastrophic sea level rise. The only “worse” case that may be avoided is a Venus Syndrome, but other environmental constraints already prevent this.
LikeLike
Good work on reddit mike. I always up vote you…. just because I can. Or maybe it’s because we’re such a warmNfuzzy “internet community”. I got kicked off r/collapse and r/darkfuturology months ago. Apparently some of my vigor was not appreciated. Back in the day. I used to get barred from some new drinking establishment every week, so at least I am progressing. Have they ask you to be a moderator yet? The reddit crowd is young and they are going to inheret the worst of it. Informing them of how they have been fucked over may help them after collapse for whatever kind of life is left. Your level of patience far exceeds mine and your skill at explaining the myriad of complex interrelated predicaments is among the best. Best of luck with the move.
LikeLike
I got kicked off r/lectures apparently for posting a talk that was not a lecture. Really, I think it was because a few got upset about this lecture on American Empire and my environmental lecture videos.
I’m just dabbling, but reddit runs the gamut of totally clueless to well informed individuals. No, I won’t be a moderator; don’t have the time. Yeah, I got the sense that there is a section of the audience that is very young. I don’t think we’re “doomers” here, just realists focusing on the underbelly of human nature and civilization.
LikeLike
Finding someone who speaks the unvarnished truth these days is like finding a unicorn, but I found one this morning. Great words in a sea of propaganda, optimism bias, self-delusion, and herd mentality:
Extinction Machine: Fixable?
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the world’s leading political, scientific and economic factions, are approaching the subject of accelerating, human-caused environmental collapse and impending mass extinction as a set of problems whose solution and remedy will likely be found in technical innovation and change. Unfortunately, the decimation of nature by human activity does not reduce to mistakes that can be fixed. To think so, is a blatant and very predictable instance of the failed, unawakened human perspective that has brought us to the current position. A perspective based on fiction.
Natural habitats, ecosystems and living species that have evolved over millions of years, only to be quickly and casually annihilated in the wake of human profit driven activity, do not bounce back with the application of quick technical fixes. They disappear and do not resurrect.
The dominant headline issues in the environmental collapse scenario, facing the world today, are climate change and global warming — a staggering reality that strongly suggests deep, perhaps, irrevocable, core changes in global ecosystem dynamics. Unfortunately, as dire as the consequences of accelerating climate change are, for sustaining life, it is only one of a myriad of human-caused factors unbalancing the global environment with equally significant and disturbing consequences.
New research (University of Edinburgh) suggests that extreme volcanic activity altered the Earth’s oceans and triggered the greatest extinction of all time. The event, which occurred 252 million years ago, wiped out more than 90 percent of marine species and more than two-thirds of land animals. It happened when Earth’s oceans absorbed huge amounts of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions. Dramatically rising acidification of the oceans now, caused by increased carbon dioxide levels; a consequence of burning fossil fuels, is driving similarly grave consequences.
Acidification, combined with diminishing oxygen levels, attributable to global warming… plus the quantifiable reality that as much as 13 million tons of plastic garbage and other toxic industrial waste flow into the oceans every year, (the annual output could get 10 times bigger over the next decade)…. well… yes; there is a limit to sustainability, even in environments as vast as the planet’s oceans. Scientists predict, that at current rates of degradation (which, by the way, are increasing), all salt water fish will be extinct by 2048.
The loss of large forest tracts has wrought dramatic, negative consequences for biodiversity and is one of the primary drivers of the global extinction crisis. Additionally, deforestation markedly spikes carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere, thereby accelerating acidification of the oceans and the degradation of the overall atmospheric balance necessary to sustain life, i.e. breathable air. The problem, according to new research, published in Science Advances, is that the vast majority of surviving forests are fragmented. Remaining forests are increasingly isolated from each other by expanses of transformed lands and are being reduced to continuously diminished, smaller patches. The damaging loss of large forests resonates far beyond the immediate footprint of deforestation. Fragmentation reduces biodiversity by up to 75%, precipitating the extinction risk of millions of forest species.
These issues are merely the tip of a massive iceberg in the complex, accelerating, destabilization and collapse of the global environment. They are not going to evaporate, reverse themselves, or be absorbed by an infinitely benevolent, forgiving nature.
Given the reality, of a world, controlled by profit -driven industries and governed by their political/legislative stewards, the possibility that humanity will somehowawaken from its larval slumber and with near unanimous intent, rally and harness all of its ingenuity and effort to retool civilization and navigate a path of sustainability that might tip the balance toward survival rather than extinction, seems, at this point… unlikely. The window is closing. The wakeup call is blaring.
Earth’s environment, like any other natural system, will seek and ultimately find a new balance. Which, if any, of the elements of this cycle will be carried forward into the new, is completely unknowable.
It appears, with striking accuracy, that beneath the veneer of denial, indifference and non-responsibility, there exists a deep recognition of the true predicament of contemporary man; the fear and loathing of brainwashed automata — numb, consuming, rapacious, blindly stumbling and colliding, preying upon each other, at the edge of oblivion. Unwittingly, the collective unconscious often manifests deeply held recognitions at the surface level, in expressions of art, literature and popular entertainment. Here we are:
LikeLike
New Video: The Trouble at Totten Glacier
The latest “This is Not Cool” video is the third in a trilogy of very important, and sobering, pieces I’ve posted over the last year. I didn’t start with a trilogy in mind, but the developments of…
LikeLike
Wind, Solar, and fusion are going to save the day, don’t you know?
Take your pick: https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/category/renewables-2/
“…I made several attempts to bring the information regarding Germany and the fantasy that the country is going “green” with energy generation to Robert Scribbler’s blog. I was evicted from posting as sending any information that tries to pierce the “group” think of the blogger and his followers was met with expulsion. They don’t want to hear from another country that will challenge what they believe. What happened to me there is not an unusual occurrence for me, but it’s why the entire situation continues to head in a direction that most claim they don’t want to go; yet they wait for “them” to fix everything with some new kind of technology…”
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/11/adventures-in-flatland-part-iii-1.html?cid=6a00d83452403c69e201b7c706542b970b#comment-6a00d83452403c69e201b7c706542b970b
LikeLike
Thanks to Mike and everyone for the essay, links and comments. My only complaint is that I am getting that sinking feeling.
I have just finished reading ‘Collision Course’ by Kerryn Higgs. Very thorough and well documented. I had a chuckle at the end of the last chapter, where she lists some of the changes that would have to be implemented to have any chance of avoiding the coming calamity. I think anyone connected with reality would know that those recommendations would have zero chance of happening, given that most citizens and institutions do not understand the underlying problems to begin with.
This is the conclusion to the last chapter:
‘It remains for others to invent pathways to solutions for these difficult problems. My object has been to illuminate the reasons for the ideological dominance of growth, and to foster an awareness of the actual realities– human and ecological–
that contradict its confident discourse. Challenging the manufactured truths of think tanks and advancing a sense of reality in the public arena are the critical next steps’
Way too late for that. Collapse is our destiny.
LikeLike
1% annual depletion = 50% gone in 70 years? please reply
LikeLike
Friend Robert has deleted some of my contributions on alternative energies and also my new favorite cartoon of Obama Drone that I shared here as well. Apparently these things are “not helpful”. Mr enlightened Dave Cohen has certainly nailed the harmonizing down – it applies to every human except him. His latest attack on McPherson and methane doomers is another one of his many contradictions. His main argument is that none of the big rock star climate scientists think a methane burp can happen any time soon. He especially, concentrates on David Archer’s opinion (I think they went to the same school U of Chicago). The methane burp hypothesis is little studied and compared to other climate related phenomena, like the AMOC, it’s really in its infancy. How is it that there is so much certainty one of the things we know the least about is not a real threat in the short term? Cohen seems to be as adept at compartmentalizing and applying different standards for different people and phenomena based on his emotional biases as anyone. Cohen’s own words confirm him as a typical a resident of flatland .
“I’m getting a little tired of climate models “underestimating” this or that, know what I mean?”
“I want to emphasize this point: Michael Mann has no fucking clue about what would happen if the AMOC were to shutdown. And neither does anybody else. We’re talking about the main heat transport between the tropics and the northern hemisphere in the Atlantic Ocean for chrissakes!”
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2015/03/early-weakening-of-the-amoc.html
Yes the man connected many dot’s defining the human condition, but he is far from the only one. Our friend James describes our contradictions even better and is a master of brilliant, Lol, dopamine dripping cynicism. After reading Cohen the only thing I feel like doing is punching him in the face.
LikeLike
LOL. Amazing to me that anyone would downplay anything related to methane with all those blowholes mysteriously popping up in Siberia, a methane cloud hovering over the American Southwest, and a growing fire season in the thawing tundra of the North, but who am I to invoke the precautionary principle.
LikeLike
Thanks Apneaman – glad i’m not alone in my observation, which matches yours.
He doesn’t mind besmirching and laughing at Guy, as if he has better credentials, disregarding the fact that McPherson’s thrust is that all of the topics in his (climate change update) essay point to HABITAT destruction, which will impact humanity on the order of NTE.
One other point is that it’s impossible to disagree with him on his blog – he just summarily kicks you out if you don’t agree with him (just like JMG). i won’t be going back, much as i liked many of his posts.
LikeLike
The “we’re fucked” point came when we lit the fuse of irreversible collapse in the continental ice sheets of Greenland, and West/East Antarctica. We realized this “fuck me” moment just recently and it’s going to alter the world in ways no one can fathom. We ultimately could have survived a banking collapse or peak oil as long as we had a stable biosphere within which to rebuild or reorganize, but when you destroy a major geographic feature of the earth that is essential to a stable climate, you destroy the very conditions which made life possible for most species including man.
We are inducing anoxic, Canfield oceans through anthropogenic climate change, overfishing, ocean acidification, fertilizer runoff, and myriad other ways that lead to dead oceans. I wouldn’t count on there being terrestrial life if there is no habitat for aquatic life; one supports the other, intertwined and co-dependent.
There is no precedence in geologic time for the rapidity and scale of the Anthropocene. Speed kills!
LikeLike
Hey Tom. Never before have I disliked anyone so much who I agreed with on so many things.
LikeLike
How do you feel about the dwindling band of commenters he clearly favors? Here’s a nugget of wisdom from long-time commenter Oliver to Cohen’s Big Brain Goes Haywire, Many People Die entry:
Thanks for saying something intelligible about this event, Dave. ‘Intentional’ or not, I am beyond fury that one ‘person’ can so easily shred the bodies of 149 others and wreck the remaining years of thousands of relatives just because he is a useless piece of big-brained shit on a crock o’ shit planet.
Will all those who wish to depart kindly throw themselves off a high cliff on their own.
Here, Oliver weakens the case for why anyone shouldn’t take 149 others with him when he goes. I’m not going to try to make the case for why anyone should take the lives of others when they can’t take one more day of this nightmare: I’ll leave that to the psychopaths who run this prison camp.
But the case for why someone at the end of their tether shouldn’t blast away at a crowd just before he goes is, given how people treat each other, already quite weak, and Oliver’s comment, aggravated by his obligatory fellatio to ol’ Dave, is reason enough to pack more than one round should it ever enter your head to go out with a blaze of glory.
LikeLike
The human perspective today is all about the health of the techno-organism, the upstart, civilization, the cancer. We concentrate upon increasing wages and the GDP, celebrate new growths of vertical concrete and steel cells, suburban sprawl, while ignoring the clear-cutting of tropical rainforests and decimation of the oceans. Humans perform their functions in their technological cells, quite adept at manipulating information and tools, but likely no longer robust enough to survive “outside”. Not only are they unable to survive “outside” as organisms, but are even more helpless outside in a degraded environment that has been fully picked-over by the dense-packed technological tumors, the cities and towns. The humans will cling to their prosthetic technology right up until the end because, especially in colder, less habitable climates, they have no real choice. They will go down with the ship as they no longer know how to be organisms in an ecosystem.
Dave Cohen is an intelligent person, very circumspect, good writer, has disappeared several of my comments and is likely very frustrated because no one is paying attention. But IMO to pay too close attention would lead one to the conclusion that we are a terminal cancer, we’ve evolved to do this, and nothing can be done except to let it play itself out in all of its phantasmagorical directions. Of course, people will continue to do what they have evolved to do, including blocking-out any cognition of reality that they find too offensive. I have to laugh every time I hear of new life extending therapies and NASA wanting to spread the malignancy into space. What cancer, once it has trashed a body, wouldn’t like to blast off to another one? We have all the characteristics of a cancer and yet even though we have a ready model of the process that occurs in metazoans, we will never be able to make the connection to the human/technological scale.
Speed, exponential growth, …………………………….it does kill, all the time.
LikeLike
James – Part of me would like to question your depressing viewpoints, but I know that you are 100% correct in what you say. The “Tell me it ain’t so Joe” part of me just has to shut up and listen to the unfortunate truth being enunciated in no uncertain terms. My hat is off to you for looking reality in the face without blinking. This is where I come for a glass of cold water in my face.
The part of me that is sick of half-assed alibis and watered down evaluations actually looks forward to your posts. I feel like the character in some old movies who when just having received a hard slap in the face says, Thanks, I needed that!”
LikeLike
Thanks Mike K. and Apneaman for your endorsement of my world class dopamine vaporizing doom (methane burps included).
The last time this sytematicity happened we got a slowly evolving ecosystem out of it. This time we have a rapidly growing technological system with an organic being embedded within, performing essential functions, and trying to cut the umbilical cord to the natural world as poisons and chaos overtake the mother’s body. For various reasons, this baby, instead of leading to long-term evolutionary development, is going to die shortly following birth along with its mother. This malformed growth called technological civilization is not confined to a womb but invades the mother’s tissues, eating away with reckless abandon. I’m sure that at some point the technological system may jettison its organic being, living planet be damned, and humans will be dumb enough to let it happen.
Cancer in a metazoan is a failure of mechanisms of control. Technological humans are different, being a system within another system and being fully dependent upon that organic system which they are in the process of trashing. For humans there never were internal controls to growth and the external controls which seem to be evolving (nuclear warfare) guarantee a massive poisoning and damage to the maternal system. We seem to want to establish technology as the dominant evolutionary paradigm on the planet, but have bypassed any careful ontological development in favor of pell-mell cancerous growth. We really must meet the conditions for continued biological health of the planet or we’re finished. Instead we imagine and build the most toxic processes in a head-over-heals evolutionary contest between nations, states, corporations and individuals that can only result in the death of the maternal ecosystem. Human technological evolution, fast and dirty, and over in the blink of a geological eye.
LikeLike
Secrecy Shrouds Decade-Old Oil Spill In Gulf Of Mexico
“OVER THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) — A blanket of fog lifts, exposing a band of rainbow sheen that stretches for miles off the coast of Louisiana. From the vantage point of an airplane, it’s easy to see gas bubbles in the slick that mark the spot where an oil platform toppled during a 2004 hurricane, triggering what might be the longest-running commercial oil spill ever to pollute the Gulf of Mexico.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16/taylor-energy-spill_n_7078916.html
LikeLike
One reason, but not the only reason, that cancers develop and grow is the failure of cells to obey chemical signals to undergo apoptosis. Middle-aged men like me receive similar signals that I am not wanted any more: unwillingness of companies to hire me; the gimlet eye from men, young or old; institutional suspicion that I’m up to no good (probable pedophile; definitely a perv); the sudden cessation of mating signals from women; and, goddammit, the failure of my green thumb to coax things into life. I’m aware of all these signals, but I’m still here, consuming away and just generally being a nuisance. Why won’t I. just. fucking. die. already?
LikeLike
is something declining 1% per year 50% gone in 70 years or 100% gone in 70 years, please help — signed, autospasz
LikeLike
Robert,
Do you mean 1% of the original amount ,and declining at that amount per year? If so,the resource will be exhausted in 100 years,and 50% gone in 50 years.
If you mean declining at a rate of 1% of the ‘running total’,things are more complicated,because the amount of decrease per year becomes less each year,and the resource never becomes 100% exhausted, I don’t know the number of years when it will be 50% exhausted,maybe someone else can give you that number,but it certainly won’t be 100% gone in 70 years.
LikeLike
Robert,
I thought more about it. If it is the second option above,it will be a case of exponential decrease,so the resource will be 50% gone in 70 years.
LikeLike
I’ve just been to NBL ,and Colin comes up with the same figure,What resource were you trying to figure out? The rate of most resource use is increasing each year,rather than decreasing,which makes me suspect the correct figure will be less than the 50 years I suggested in option one of my first reply.
LikeLike
If i am declining 1% per year when will i be 100% gone?
LikeLike
…“I think it’s really important that young people understand the situation that we older people are leaving them with,” said Hansen, currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to deal with … and I’ve become frustrated with governments that don’t recognize their responsibilities to future generations.”
“We have an emergency,” Hansen said. He pointed out that there is a lag in the climate system, so the planet has not yet finished warming from the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. “And we’re adding more all the time,” he added.
What’s more, the response to this increase in greenhouse gases is likely to be extremely nonlinear, he said: “It just turns out that our climate system is dominated by amplifying feedbacks … so there’s a danger that the system is going to run out of control.”
Some effects of climate change, he said, are simply irreversible. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that 25 to 50 percent of all species on Earth could be extinct by 2100 if energy use continues on its current trajectory. The loss of ice sheets is essentially also irreversible, since it takes thousands of years for these sheets to accumulate. While most policy recommendations have focused on trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would produce warming of no more than 2 degrees Celsius, that is “actually a disaster scenario, in my opinion,” Hansen said: It would likely cause so much melting of ice sheets that the resulting sea-level rise would render most of the world’s coastal cities uninhabitable…
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/james_hansen_to_mitigate_climate_change_nuclear_energy_should_be_included-154923
LikeLike
So…question, i’m not entirely sure im understanding this. Forgive me if i sound like an idiot, but what does all that mean? Does it mean we’re looking at Water World, or 2012?
LikeLike
Pingback from:
LikeLike